Senate torture report

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Senate torture report

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

Didn't Peter King literally fund the IRA before he became America's #1 opponent of those dastardly browm mooslim terrorists? A guy who can do those mental gymnastics can provably justify anything.

The real fun question would be to ask him if it would have been okay for scotland yard to do these exact things to IRA members (and a few random innocent cab drivers thrown in).

Basically, if CIA torture offers another opportunity to watch Peter King defend white terrorists in the same breath he attacks brown ones, then it was worth it.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 03:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 17:32

awesmoe: Nov 30, 2005; Pillbug

Badger of Basra posted:

It's not really "tarring" when the only people who will take it that way are people who already don't like them anyway. Every CIA agent who gets a preemptive pardon from Obama will go on Fox talking about how it's really a badge of honor and if the usurper in chief thinks I shouldn't have protected the country, well that's his problem. People who care about torture will continue to think it is wrong. Nothing changes.

It removes the defense of "well the obama administration didn't think it was a crime, and thats why we in the clinton-2 administration feel confident that ramming feeding tubes up asses is a legal and acceptable enhanced interrogation technique".

# ? Dec 11, 2014 03:42

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Papercut posted:

On the News Hour today, their guest objected to the term "torture" so for the rest of the discussion both sides referred only to "EITs" (enhanced interrogation techniques). Awesome work NPR.

That's PBS, but :shrug:

awesmoe posted:

It removes the defense of "well the obama administration didn't think it was a crime, and thats why we in the clinton-2 administration feel confident that ramming feeding tubes up asses is a legal and acceptable enhanced interrogation technique".

Yeah a pardon is something actually doable that at least officially categorizes what happened as crimes. See Nixon's library if you think it wasn't effective.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 03:47

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

Has anyone heard any media outlet call this rape yet? I've only seen it referred to as rectal feeding so far, which is approximately the same thing as calling it EIT instead of torture.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 03:53

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Didn't Peter King literally fund the IRA before he became America's #1 opponent of those dastardly browm mooslim terrorists? A guy who can do those mental gymnastics can provably justify anything.

The real fun question would be to ask him if it would have been okay for scotland yard to do these exact things to IRA members (and a few random innocent cab drivers thrown in).

Basically, if CIA torture offers another opportunity to watch Peter King defend white terrorists in the same breath he attacks brown ones, then it was worth it.

Thing only thing you'll find consistent here are Republicans defending Bush and Cheney, because this is pretty drat incriminating:

Fred Kaplan posted:

Of all the shocks and revelations in the Senate Intelligence Committee�s report on CIA torture, one seems very strange and unlikely: that the agency misinformed the White House and didn�t even brief President George W. Bush about its controversial program until April 2006.

The question of the claim�s truth or implausibility is not trivial or academic; it goes well beyond score-settling, Bush-bashing, or scapegoating. Rather, it speaks to an issue that�s central in the report in the long history of CIA scandals, and in debates over whether and how policy should be changed: Did the torture begin, and did it get out of hand, because the CIA�s detention and interrogation program devolved into a rogue operation? Or were the program�s managers actually doing the president�s dirty business?

If the former was the case, then heads should roll, grand juries should be assembled, organizational charts should be reshuffled, and mechanisms of oversight should be tightened. If the latter was the case, well, that�s what elections are for. �Enhanced-interrogation techniques� were formally ended by President Obama after the 2008 election, and perhaps future presidents will read the report with an eye toward avoiding the mistakes of the past.

But which was it? Were the CIA�s directorate of operations and its counterterrorism center freelancing after the Sept. 11 attacks, or were they exchanging winks and nods with the commander-in-chief?

The annals of history suggest the latter, and in a few passages, so does the report. A big lesson of the Church Committee�Sen. Frank Church�s mid-1970s probe into black-bag jobs, assassination plots, coup attempts, and other acts of CIA malfeasance since the agency�s origins�is that, in nearly every instance, there was no �rogue elephant� at Langley. Rather, the presidents in office at the time knew what was going on, at least in broad, strategic terms�and their CIA henchmen knew to give the leader of the free world a wide berth of �plausible deniability� in case they got caught.

As the Church reports and books such as Tim Weiner�s Legacy of Ashes clearly show, President Dwight Eisenhower knew about and approved the CIA�s plot to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. President John F. Kennedy knew about, and approved, the plots to murder Cuba�s Fidel Castro; in fact, his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, formed a top-secret �special group� in the White House to oversee the operation. President Lyndon B. Johnson (who, after he left office, told a reporter that Kennedy had been running �a drat Murder Inc. in the Caribbean�) carried on the enterprise elsewhere in Latin America.

It seems odd, then, that the officials running the CIA interrogation program kept things secret from the highest elected officials and thus, as the report puts it, �impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.� First, the history of these sorts of programs suggests they were carrying out White House decisions. Second, President Bush and especially Vice President Dick Cheney supported the program, and they still emphatically defend it. Bush wrote in his memoirs that he approved it.

The committee�s own account contains anomalies on this question. For instance, the report cites an internal CIA email noting that �the [White House] is extremely concerned [that Secretary of State Colin] Powell would blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what�s been going on.� That was written in July 2003, nearly three years before Bush was supposedly first briefed on the program, yet someone in the White House not only knew about it, but knew enough to know that certain Cabinet secretaries�in this case, a former Army general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff well-versed in the Geneva Conventions and official manuals on interrogation�might object.

The report also cites a briefing by a CIA station chief to a government official in a foreign country where the agency had set up a secret detention center. �The presentation,� the report says of the briefing, �also noted that the president of the United States had directed that he not be informed of the location of the CIA detention facilities to ensure he would not accidentally disclose the information.�

No date is provided for when this briefing took place (or perhaps it�s been redacted in the footnote), but the context suggests 2003 or 2004. Again, this is two or three years before Bush was supposedly first briefed on the program�yet, he already knew that the CIA did have secret foreign detention centers for interrogating suspected terrorists in ways that might be illegal if done stateside.

A key point here is that Bush �had directed� the CIA not to tell him the locations of these centers. This fits the classic pattern of �plausible deniability�: The president is told about the drift and outlines of the black program (be it an assassination, a coup, bribery, torture, or whatever), but he doesn�t want to be told too much. He doesn�t want his fingerprints on any directive, so that, in case things go awry, he can blame Langley�and part of Langley�s job is to take the blame.

With this in mind, let�s take a close look at the committee�s claim that Bush wasn�t briefed on the program until it had nearly run its course: �According to CIA records,� the report states, �no CIA officer, up to and including CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss, briefed the president on the specific CIA enhanced interrogation techniques before April 2006.�

I�ve italicized two words in this passage, for emphasis. The second word is key: Bush wasn�t briefed on the �specific� techniques till 2006. Under the well-known rules of plausible deniability, he would not have wanted to know too much about these specifics. As indicated in the station chief�s presentation, it�s not that the CIA didn�t tell the president certain details; it�s that the president didn�t want the CIA to tell him.

But the other use of italics��According to CIA records��is more significant than it may seem at first glance. The Senate committee was denied access to White House records. Its staff examined only CIA records, and if the principles of plausible deniability were in force, the CIA probably would not have had records of earlier briefings, if there were any. (And we know there must have been some, because Bush knew, much earlier, about the fact that secret foreign detention centers existed.) It�s worth noting, according to the report, that the April 2006 briefing took place only after Bush�s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, demanded that he be briefed. At that point, deniability would no longer be plausible; word of the program had spread beyond the Oval Office and into the West Wing.

The report also notes that Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld, the secretaries of state and defense, were finally briefed on these unpleasant specifics on Sept. 16, 2003.Are the report�s authors suggesting that the CIA informed key members of the president�s Cabinet 2� years before it told the president himself? If nothing else, Cheney, who had his own back-channel contacts at Langley, would have known what was going on. It is now well known that, on many national security issues, Cheney was running the show during Bush�s first term. But there�s no evidence, on any issue, that Cheney left Bush out of the loop.

One sign of the dysfunctional decision-making in Bush�s first term is that, quite often, the National Security Council would decide on some policy, and then Cheney would have a one-on-one chat with Bush in the Oval Office, and the policy would be crucially modified or reversed. Unless Bush kept a tape recorder running, like Kennedy and Johnson, we may never know the full reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the termination of talks with North Korea, or many other actions Bush took that affected the fate of the nation and the lives of millions of people worldwide.

None of this should imply that the CIA was blameless, or merely a White House tool, in its torture of detainees. The report lays out compelling evidence that the agency�s directorate of operations and its counterterrorism center lied to its own lawyers and inspector general; that they kept congressional intelligence committees in the dark; and that they contracted out many interrogations (at enormous expense) to inexperienced psychologists of a sadistic bent, ignoring dissent not only from FBI agents (who often eked out more useful information with gentler techniques) but also from the CIA�s own chief of interrogations, who wrote a memo, back on Jan. 21, 2003, expressing �serious reservations� about their techniques, adding, �This is a train wreck waiting to happen, and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens.�

The committee offers no recommendations on how to make things better (at least not in the 524-page executive summary partly declassified and released this week), but there are clear lessons for future presidents to absorb. Not least is the dark, slippery slide of �plausible deniability.� It must be tempting for a president to nod his head, say, �Make it so,� and then sit back, knowing that, whatever �it� is will probably happen. That�s part of what the CIA does and always has done. But as this report, like many similar reports in the past 40 years, clearly show, it�s a perilous gamble; the people who carry out such orders take them literally and to the maximum limit. Presidents should stop doing this, even if it means accepting accountability for things they�ve long been enabled to avoid.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 03:56

Darth Walrus: Feb 13, 2012

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Has anyone heard any media outlet call this rape yet? I've only seen it referred to as rectal feeding so far, which is approximately the same thing as calling it EIT instead of torture.

I some ways, I think rectal feeding is the better term. I mean, yes, rape is a powerful, emotive term, but shunting entire meals up someone's rear end to gently caress up their digestive system somehow seems even more horrifying, and the more precise 'rectal feeding' seems to better encapsulate what made it special. 'Anal food rape', maybe?

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:01

Weltlich: Feb 13, 2006; Grimey Drawer

Shbobdb posted:

So, how would someone apply for a job at one of these CIA torture sites? How do you get yourself in that situation? If we're going to have an evil gravy train, may as well be on it!

First thing first, make sure your history is squeaky clean. No arrests, no unpaid bills, no positive drug tests, etc. Also make sure all your friends and family will only say nice things about you when federal investigators come to ask questions. Funfact: Mormons have a disproportionately high representation in our intelligence services because they get through background checks really easily!

Next, have some sort of college degree - a soft one in psychology or foreign relations is generally a good bet. If you can take some beginners classes in Arabic, that helps, but isn't necessary.

Lastly have no scruples.

If you can check those three boxes, then check cia.gov for their next recruiting meet & greet (they have a few per year) and just show up to hand in a resume and fill out an application.

Congrats, you're on your way to a rewarding career in atrocities and war crimes!

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:12

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Weltlich posted:

First thing first, make sure your history is squeaky clean. No arrests, no unpaid bills, no positive drug tests, etc. Also make sure all your friends and family will only say nice things about you when federal investigators come to ask questions. Funfact: Mormons have a disproportionately high representation in our intelligence services because they get through background checks really easily!

Next, have some sort of college degree - a soft one in psychology or foreign relations is generally a good bet. If you can take some beginners classes in Arabic, that helps, but isn't necessary.

Lastly have no scruples.

If you can check those three boxes, then check cia.gov for their next recruiting meet & greet (they have a few per year) and just show up to hand in a resume and fill out an application.

Congrats, you're on your way to a rewarding career in atrocities and war crimes!

Uh, according to the report, it would help more to have been discharged under other than honorable conditions from a military intelligence job, have anger management issues, and be an admitted sexual predator.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:14

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

Darth Walrus posted:

I some ways, I think rectal feeding is the better term. I mean, yes, rape is a powerful, emotive term, but shunting entire meals up someone's rear end to gently caress up their digestive system somehow seems even more horrifying, and the more precise 'rectal feeding' seems to better encapsulate what made it special. 'Anal food rape', maybe?

I don't think rape is appropriate because it's powerful or emotive, but because it is correct. The CIA documents acknowledged they used the technique instead of safe IV/nasal alternatives because it furthered their goal of creating a power dynamic based on humiliation and fear. Nonconsensual penetration of the anus is included under the U.S. Code (and any state statute I am familiar with) definition of rape:

quote:

penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

10 U.S.C �920(g)(1)(B), provided one of the compulsion elements of subsection (a) is present, which they were. It's right there next to the hold a bitch down and gently caress her subsection. If this had been a female detainee and they raped her with a penis to break her, that would be the numero uno thing people talk about. This is the same thing, at least according to the U.S. Code (and I would argue under any sane definition of rape, though I don't want to derail into a debate about what counts as "rape rape").

They shoved things up peoples' asses for the sole purpose of humiliating them. That's rape, and it should be called rape.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:23

Weltlich: Feb 13, 2006; Grimey Drawer

Stultus Maximus posted:

Uh, according to the report, it would help more to have been discharged under other than honorable conditions from a military intelligence job, have anger management issues, and be an admitted sexual predator.

These things are just gravy for the resume's bullet points. The important part is that you say you ar willing to work overseas assignments. Otherwise you get stuck in DC doing analyst work instead of analist work in Poland.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:29

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

Kazak_Hstan posted:

Has anyone heard any media outlet call this rape yet? I've only seen it referred to as rectal feeding so far, which is approximately the same thing as calling it EIT instead of torture.

Over here the Guardian called it "rectal assault" in its sub-headline for the story, which I thought was a good phrase for it. Rectal feeding conjures something more medical than blending up prison food and pumping it into people's arses for no reason other than torture.

Its really lovely but not remotely surprising a lot of news is taking the "Just a little waterboarding nobody really got hurt" stance, but the report is basically geared to do that. It was the first thing I thought on reading it is "this is horrible, but all the worst stuff is in the margins" the main body concerns waterboarding and stress positions and focusses on how effective the torture was at gathering intelligence. This stance is much like the anti-Iraq war liberal hawks whose opposition was based on how badly it was run. The idea is if it was effective torture would be fine.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:30

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

It appears from the report most of the interrogators were ex-CIA hired by the psychologist contractors. So, join the CIA and then decide that working for the CIA isn't extreme enough for you.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:30

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Trabisnikof posted:

It appears from the report most of the interrogators were ex-CIA hired by the psychologist contractors. So, join the CIA and then decide that working for the CIA isn't extreme enough for you.

More like "and then become 'subcontracted' to add more layers of obfuscation"

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:32

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Bel Shazar posted:

More like "and then become 'subcontracted' to add more layers of obfuscation"

Oh sure, but if you want the actual job of torturing people you need to be ex-CIA and connected in the right circles. However, there are lots of jobs where you'd get to help torture people, with opportunities in every career field!

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:34

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Weltlich posted:

These things are just gravy for the resume's bullet points. The important part is that you say you ar willing to work overseas assignments. Otherwise you get stuck in DC doing analyst work instead of analist work in Poland.

Actual interview footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_urvjCXg6c

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:34

Antares: Jan 13, 2006

Trabisnikof posted:

That's PBS, but

Don't worry I've heard plenty of CIA apologists on NPR getting softballed as well

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:39

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

awesmoe posted:

It removes the defense of "well the obama administration didn't think it was a crime, and thats why we in the clinton-2 administration feel confident that ramming feeding tubes up asses is a legal and acceptable enhanced interrogation technique".

You're right, that's why Reagan was skittish about expanding presidential power.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:40

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Antares posted:

Don't worry I've heard plenty of CIA apologists on NPR getting softballed as well

If they ask the hard questions nobody will come back to talk to them.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:40

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

This is the reason no one is going to go to jail:

"If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts, or reviewing evidence gained from past experience."

Oh man this bit is even better:

VF posted:

However, the conflict even exceeded the multiple roles played by the psychologists. Ultimately, according to the report, the C.I.A.�s Office of Medical Services raised concerns that the conflicts of interest were �nowhere more graphic than in the setting in which the same individuals applied an [enhanced interrogation technique] which only they were approved to employ, judged both its effectiveness and detainee resilience, and implicitly proposed continued use of the technique�at a daily compensation reported to be $1800/day, or four times that of interrogators who could not use the technique.�

Why yes, this thing that I authorize only myself to do and pays $1800 a day is totally working!

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 11, 2014

# ? Dec 11, 2014 04:42

Communist Thoughts: Jan 7, 2008; Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!

Trabisnikof posted:

This is the reason no one is going to go to jail:

"If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts, or reviewing evidence gained from past experience."

Awesome, so studying better ways to torture people is acting in good faith and negates the torture. Makes sense.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 05:06

Kazak_Hstan: Apr 28, 2014; Grimey Drawer

Trabisnikof posted:

This is the reason no one is going to go to jail:

"If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts, or reviewing evidence gained from past experience."

That's just, like, Jay Bybee's opinion, man.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 05:09

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Antares posted:

Don't worry I've heard plenty of CIA apologists on NPR getting softballed as well

Mike Morell was on CBS News this morning displaying his freshman level understanding of ethics. He essentially admited that he would kill 1,000 people to save 1,001. It is comforting to know that it isn't just local police who callously disregard the dignity of humanity, but that all our institutions of justice and national security are rotten to the core with violence and depravity.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 05:20

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Unhinged Vulcan posted:

https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/index.html

Probably somewhere in clandestine services.

Everyone should apply and list experience with anal on their resume.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 05:47

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Bel Shazar posted:

If they ask the hard questions nobody will come back to talk to them.

That would be a net good.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 07:37

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Of course there's a link to the Contras:

quote:

In the 1980s, a CIA officer devised an interrogation manual for the use of the U.S.-backed contras fighting the government of Nicaragua, which included the use of violence to elicit information. The CIA�s inspector general recommended that the officer be admonished for inappropriate use of interrogation techniques. It appears from the Senate report that this same man became the officer in charge of CIA interrogations in 2002.

(http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-cia-113479.html#ixzz3LZauzteB)

# ? Dec 11, 2014 08:45

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

fade5 posted:

E: Or did this happen some time in the past, like back when Gaddafi was still in power?

You know how Gaddafi was, after decades of hostility, getting closer and closer to the West before the whole Arab Spring thing happened?

Think about how that happened.

Jagchosis posted:

john yoo explained his strategy for appearing slick in interviews to me: government types are generally given a set of 2 or 3 talking points to repeat with different wording, and journalists (and stewart) know this, so if you anticipate what talking points the journos are expecting in advance just completely talk around it and talk about something that they don't expect, but make it sound like you're answering their question. please tell me if he deploys this strategy on CNN, or if he's refined it

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Jagchosis suffered more consequences for ommitting punctuation from this post than Bush & Cheney et al ever will for rectal feeding, waterboarding and straight up murder.

Serious question, how does anyone still take any US law seriously after this?

Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Dec 11, 2014

# ? Dec 11, 2014 11:05

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

I didn't know American Dad was a documentary.

I am disgusted by this as much as videos of ISIS assholes beheading people. The US is no better than ISIS. You are both terrorist. I am disgusted by having my country allied with yours. If you do not prosecute these people no matter their position, you will have completely lost your soul as a country.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 11:43

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Regarding Bush: Cheney claims he knew everything (also the report is bullshit):

quote:

But the former Republican vice-president dismissed this, saying: "The notion that the committee is trying to peddle that somehow the agency was operating on a rogue basis and that we weren't being told - that the president wasn't being told - is a flat-out lie."

In the interview on Thursday, Mr Cheney said the report was "deeply flawed" and a "terrible piece of work", although he admitted he had not read the whole document.

President Bush "knew everything he needed to know, and wanted to know" about CIA interrogation, he said. "He knew the techniques... there was no effort on my part to keep it from him.

"He was fully informed."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30427211

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:07

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Cheney should be tried and hung.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:10

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

Cheney should be tried and hung.

he's halfway there

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:25

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

This was all over the internet this morning

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:31

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

This was all over the internet this morning

Joke's on them: torture doesn't gather information.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:40

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

They don't care it's all about revenge on people that were already dead before the guy in the photo.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:42

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

This was all over the internet this morning

Too bad the CIA is pretty terrible at identifying terrorists.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:55

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

Badger of Basra posted:

It's not really "tarring" when the only people who will take it that way are people who already don't like them anyway. Every CIA agent who gets a preemptive pardon from Obama will go on Fox talking about how it's really a badge of honor and if the usurper in chief thinks I shouldn't have protected the country, well that's his problem. People who care about torture will continue to think it is wrong. Nothing changes.

This doesn't really matter, because history shows people look back and have negative views of these types of things. Pardoning them would suggest they committed a crime and be a victory for being on the right side of history.

In 40 years once many of the baby boomers are dead I doubt anyone who isn't sociopathic or self-absorbed will defend the Bush-era torture programs. Pardoning them would go a long way to creating that view. Of course, Obama is a coward and probably won't.

Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Dec 11, 2014

# ? Dec 11, 2014 14:59

FuriousxGeorge: Aug 8, 2007; We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.

I hope I never die in a terrorist attack so republicans can't use pictures of me to justify their war crimes.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 15:03

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Joke's on them: torture doesn't gather information.

I'm sure you only say that because some liberals told you so. That CIA gentleman on the television told me that they've prevented five 9/11s already.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 15:05

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Joke's on them: torture doesn't gather information.

Everyone in the CIA program is a vetted terrorist, right? Right?

# ? Dec 11, 2014 15:06

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

mobby_6kl posted:

Regarding Bush: Cheney claims he knew everything (also the report is bullshit):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30427211

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30423280

Hayden said the same thing. I don't know if this interview has been posted in this thread yet, but you should watch it. Hayden is this huge dick the whole time and then at the end he's like, "Reminder that all this happened before I came in and actually I took dudes out of the black sites".

The best part about what Hayden says is, when asked if Bush knew he says "Oh, he knew. [pause] I don't know when he knew it but by the time that I blah blah blah" so you can literally see the words "What did the President know and when did he know it" in a thought bubble above his head.

# ? Dec 11, 2014 15:52